Still Stratus Not Altocumulus: Further Evidence against the Date/Party Hub Distinction

Analysis of multi-validated protein interaction data reveals networks with greater interconnectivity than the more segregated structures seen in previously available data. To help visualize this, the authors draw comparisons between continuous stratus clouds and altocumulus clouds

Stratus Not Altocumulus: A New View of the Yeast Protein Interaction Network

Systems biology approaches can reveal intermediary levels of organization between genotype and phenotype that often underlie biological phenomena such as polygenic effects and protein dispensability. An important conceptualization is the module, which is loosely defined as a cohort of proteins that perform a dedicated cellular task. Based on a computational analysis of limited interaction datasets in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it has been suggested that the global protein interaction network is segregated such that highly connected proteins, called hubs, tend not to link to each other. Moreover, it has been suggested that hubs fall into two distinct classes: “party” hubs are co-expressed and co-localized with their partners, whereas “date” hubs interact with incoherently expressed and diversely localized partners, and thereby cohere disparate parts of the global network. This structure may be compared with altocumulus clouds, i.e., cotton ball–like structures sparsely connected by thin wisps. However, this organization might reflect a small and/or biased sample set of interactions. In a multi-validated high-confidence (HC) interaction network, assembled from all extant S. cerevisiae interaction data, including recently available proteome-wide interaction data and a large set of reliable literature-derived interactions, we find that hub–hub interactions are not suppressed. In fact, the number of interactions a hub has with other hubs is a good predictor of whether a hub protein is essential or not. We find that date hubs are neither required for network tolerance to node deletion, nor do date hubs have distinct biological attributes compared to other hubs. Date and party hubs do not, for example, evolve at different rates. Our analysis suggests that the organization of global protein interaction network is highly interconnected and hence interdependent, more like the continuous dense aggregations of stratus clouds than the segregated configuration of altocumulus clouds. If the network is configured in a stratus format, cross-talk between proteins is potentially a major source of noise. In turn, control of the activity of the most highly connected proteins may be vital. Indeed, we find that a fluctuation in steady-state levels of the most connected proteins is minimized

The BioGRID interaction database: 2015 update

The Biological General Repository for Interaction Datasets (BioGRID: http://thebiogrid.org) is an open access database that houses genetic and protein interactions curated from the primary biomedical literature for all major model organism species and humans. As of September 2014, the BioGRID contains 749 912 interactions as drawn from 43 149 publications that represent 30 model organisms. This interaction count represents a 50% increase compared to our previous 2013 BioGRID update. BioGRID data are freely distributed through partner model organism databases and meta-databases and are directly downloadable in a variety of formats. In addition to general curation of the published literature for the major model species, BioGRID undertakes themed curation projects in areas of particular relevance for biomedical sciences, such as the ubiquitin-proteasome system and various human disease-associated interaction networks. BioGRID curation is coordinated through an Interaction Management System (IMS) that facilitates the compilation interaction records through structured evidence codes, phenotype ontologies, and gene annotation. The BioGRID architecture has been improved in order to support a broader range of interaction and post-translational modification types, to allow the representation of more complex multi-gene/protein interactions, to account for cellular phenotypes through structured ontologies, to expedite curation through semi-automated text-mining approaches, and to enhance curation quality control

Why Do Hubs in the Yeast Protein Interaction Network Tend To Be Essential: Reexamining the Connection between the Network Topology and Essentiality

The centrality-lethality rule, which notes that high-degree nodes in a protein interaction network tend to correspond to proteins that are essential, suggests that the topological prominence of a protein in a protein interaction network may be a good predictor of its biological importance. Even though the correlation between degree and essentiality was confirmed by many independent studies, the reason for this correlation remains illusive. Several hypotheses about putative connections between essentiality of hubs and the topology of protein–protein interaction networks have been proposed, but as we demonstrate, these explanations are not supported by the properties of protein interaction networks. To identify the main topological determinant of essentiality and to provide a biological explanation for the connection between the network topology and essentiality, we performed a rigorous analysis of six variants of the genomewide protein interaction network for Saccharomyces cerevisiae obtained using different techniques. We demonstrated that the majority of hubs are essential due to their involvement in Essential Complex Biological Modules, a group of densely connected proteins with shared biological function that are enriched in essential proteins. Moreover, we rejected two previously proposed explanations for the centrality-lethality rule, one relating the essentiality of hubs to their role in the overall network connectivity and another relying on the recently published essential protein interactions model

The BioGRID interaction database: 2013 update

The Biological General Repository for Interaction Datasets (BioGRID: http//thebiogrid.org) is an open access archive of genetic and protein interactions that are curated from the primary biomedical literature for all major model organism species. As of September 2012, BioGRID houses more than 500 000 manually annotated interactions from more than 30 model organisms. BioGRID maintains complete curation coverage of the literature for the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe and the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. A number of themed curation projects in areas of biomedical importance are also supported. BioGRID has established collaborations and/or shares data records for the annotation of interactions and phenotypes with most major model organism databases, including Saccharomyces Genome Database, PomBase, WormBase, FlyBase and The Arabidopsis Information Resource. BioGRID also actively engages with the text-mining community to benchmark and deploy automated tools to expedite curation workflows. BioGRID data are freely accessible through both a user-defined interactive interface and in batch downloads in a wide variety of formats, including PSI-MI2.5 and tab-delimited files. BioGRID records can also be interrogated and analyzed with a series of new bioinformatics tools, which include a post-translational modification viewer, a graphical viewer, a REST service and a Cytoscape plugin

Fraction of Hub–Hub Interactions Reduce with Scale of Experiments

<p>Protein interactions from the LC dataset were separated into subgroups based on the number of interactions reported in the same publication, which was taken as a proxy for experimental scale. For each sub-network, hubs were defined as protein with connectivity exceeding the 90th percentile. The strong negative correlation (<i>r</i> = −0.85, <i>p</i> < 0.01, Spearman) indicates that as the size of the screen increases, bias against hub–hub interactions begins to appear.</p